Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics vs GeForce GTX 675M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 675M SLI and Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 675M SLI outperforms HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics by a whopping 215% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 508 | 813 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.95 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | no data |
| GPU code name | N12E-GTX2 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 1 August 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 620 MHz | 720 / 825 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2x 100 Watt | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
- Other tests
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+86.4%
|
40−45
−86.4%
|
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+600%
|
6−7
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+159%
|
45−50
−159%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+135%
|
24−27
−135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+86.4%
|
40−45
−86.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+135%
|
24−27
−135%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+86.4%
|
40−45
−86.4%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+226%
|
18−20
−226%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+82.6%
|
21−24
−82.6%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+300%
|
21−24
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 675M SLI is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 675M SLI surpassed HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics in all 56 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.47 | 2.37 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 1 August 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 675M SLI has a 215.2% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 675M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
